What people are saying about the grocer's requirement that genetically modified foods be labeled.

Newsday, Long Island, editorial: "Whole Foods Market's recent decision to require labels on foods sold in its stores after 2018 that contain genetically modified ingredients is a pro-consumer move. It smartly sidesteps the controversy over whether such labeling should be mandatory. Even better, since 2009, the upscale grocery chain has been labeling many products that do not contain genetically modified organisms (GMO). Consumers should have that information so they can make informed decisions about what they eat."

The New York Times, editorial: "The Food and Drug Administration says it has no basis for concluding that foods developed by bioengineering techniques present different or greater safety concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. Nevertheless, bills are pending in several states to require mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients (a referendum to compel such labeling was narrowly defeated in California last November). For now, there seems little reason to make labeling compulsory."

Bloomberg View, editorial: "It's not unusual to hear an assortment of ills ascribed to GMO foods, from obesity and cancer to infertility and genetic defects. ... Such attacks obscure the virtues of GMO crops. Engineered to thrive in extreme weather, they can improve food security, staving off malnutrition and starvation amid changing climates, particularly in Africa and Asia. Legitimate questions remain. ... Meanwhile, we support a truce. In exchange for proper GMO labeling by food producers and retailers, opponents of GMO food sources should observe a moratorium on scientifically dubious claims and other forms of scare-mongering."

Robin Shreeves, Mother Nature Network: "This Whole Foods decision came about because of consumer demand. I'm always incredibly optimistic when I hear that changes come about because the people demand it. The mandatory GMO labeling at Whole Foods gives me hope that even if our federal government doesn't do what 60 other countries have already done, GMO labeling may eventually be the norm in our country."

Patrice Sarath,Bizmology: "On a practical level, complying with the Whole Foods requirements will mean an investment in new product labeling. Food producers will have to decide whether to include the GMO information on all of their labels, even for foods destined for other grocery chains, or make Whole Foods-specific labels, which could lead to additional expense. ... In news articles, supporters of the new labeling called it a 'game changer.' Food producers would probably agree."

Sarah Fecht,Science 2.0: "In the U.S., GMOs are part of nearly everyone's daily staple diet. For uneducated consumers, a GMO label is akin to putting a skull and crossbones on a product. Perhaps those consumers will be persuaded to buy 'natural' GMO-free products, and pay twice as much for exactly the same product. For groups that are shelling out huge amounts of money to make GMO labeling mandatory ... that's exactly what they're hoping for."

Ronald Bailey, Reason: "Simply slap a label on everything saying: 'This product may contain ingredients from modern biotech crops.' Pretty soon for most consumers ... such a label will go in one eye and out the other with little effect on their purchasing decisions."